The Canadian States Of America

The reason why I brought this idea out,is that it is suggested from time to time..and if it's placed at the right time in the history of the two nations..and if the variation in the POC is accurate..then I could fully see "America" being incorpertated into British North America. As for the name of this possible country,would it be possible for it to still be called "Canada" that is if the British eventually relinquish control of the land..

Your best bet is to have no ARW, in that sense, and tinker a bit with history to get whatever 'Canadian' traits you would like/feel are needed to replace 'American' ones.

After all, even today, taking politics out of things, both are still sea-to-sea English-speaking liberal nation states. Surely a loyalist continent-spanning British North America in general, assuming butterflies are fairly nonexistent, can also be one. ;)
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
Your best bet is to have no ARW, in that sense, and tinker a bit with history to get whatever 'Canadian' traits you would like/feel are needed to replace 'American' ones.

After all, even today, taking politics out of things, both are still sea-to-sea English-speaking liberal nation states. Surely a loyalist continent-spanning British North America in general, assuming butterflies are fairly nonexistent, can also be one. ;)
I think it wouldn't be called "Canada" in the absense of an "America" to differentiate itself from, the Canadians would have no reason not to call themselves Americans, and seeing how they would then occupy most of the Continent, would probably feel themselves every bit entitled to the right.

Truth be told, there is not really that much difference between the United States of America and Canada, they are different forms of Representative Democracy, but they are still Representative Democracies, if they use different words for their constitutions but still guarantee the same basic rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, then I don't see how what you call the country can make that much of a difference. If you can imagine us having the same jobs, pursuing the same careers and lifestyles but under a different flag from the Stars & Stripes, I don't see how makes much of a difference at all.
 
It depends when and under what conditions. "Canada" dates back to the Indians, and the name was used in the times of New-France. It doesnt need to be synonymous with the mostly English Canada we are used to.

If you simply want the polarity of power to be situated in Canada and the name Canada to be synonymous with the dominant power in North America, a successful New-France that populates faster and absorbs the British colonies could very well gives you what you desire. Quebec City could well become in time the largest city on the continent despite the northern climate and rule over it all. Territorially speaking if nothing else, its less a stretch than what happened in OTL, considering that New-France was over ten times larger than the British colonies and yet was absorbed whole in a single war.

That I think would be more plausible - but then, as in OTL, the French language in this "Canada" is going to split into numerous dialects, yet since Québec City is the capital and largest city in TTL, then the dialect of Québec City might be the prestige variety of French in North America (as opposed to the Parisian dialect in France, compare the situation between RP in English English and General American in American English). Now, to tweak the Supreme Council of New France to allow anglophones in . . . .
 
Actually the Canadian health care system is both vastly more efficient and cheaper than the current American system. This is a fact and not something that can be argued.

Sure its cheaper and more efficient at processing people. However it is no coincidence that Canada M.Ds practice in America because we have better facilities and more state of the art technologies.
 
Can we please avoid comparing and contrasting health care systems, please? If you want to do that, please - we have millions of threads on health care in Chat.
 
I suppose,the only real difference between Canada and America is that Canada holds a fondess for the empire and America turned it's back on it. I would guess,because of the British backdrop..the last time that Canada could have absorbed America is if the Confederates won the Civil War..and Canada made a deal with the Union to save the framework and become a single country. Would this be enough to thwart off a Southern advance? Enough reason for America to join with Canada? Common sense says a British victory in 1812..means American annexation..perhaps..
 
I suppose,the only real difference between Canada and America is that Canada holds a fondess for the empire and America turned it's back on it. I would guess,because of the British backdrop..the last time that Canada could have absorbed America is if the Confederates won the Civil War..and Canada made a deal with the Union to save the framework and become a single country. Would this be enough to thwart off a Southern advance? Enough reason for America to join with Canada? Common sense says a British victory in 1812..means American annexation..perhaps..
Err, no. Just no.

Could they have reannexed the US after 1812 if it was a crushing victory? Yes, but it would be so extremely costly(maybe not in lives but certainly in money) to occupy the eastern states. They could claim the area west of the Mississippi and puppeted New England if they're extraordinarily wanked.

As for the ACW scenario, no definitely not. Even without the south, the Union is still a verly large nation with huge potential. You'd more likely get a far more belligerent Union that's going to just wait for the right moment to invade and finally crush the CSA. "Thwart off a southern advance"? The south has no reason to try and advance. They wanted to secede from the US, not conquer it and force it to conform to their views. Even if they were stupid enough to get involved in another war with the North, chances are they won't be so lucky because the advantages are so far in the Union's favor that it just wouldn't work. Sorry, but this idea is just plain ASB.

Eitherway, neither of these would be Canadianwanks, but Britwanks. Eventually(or in the ACW case almost immediately) it would be the Americans with their larger population and resources that become the dominant members of the agreement.
 
Top